Clearly he was right. Not sure how else to call what's going on now. Many people now are doomed. You just don't hear about them - This makes their suffering worse, not better. It's a matter of time before it reaches the rest of us. The rot has already eaten away the core of the economy.
In my day, nobody would sweat this trivial stuff. You need to travel for work, big deal! It's always been this way! Nowadays there are so many good easy jobs in the city, so many forms of public transport... It's never been easier.
In my day, people would go to work every day no matter how sick they were. Nobody bat an eyelash over this. You just soldier on and get the job done! The work isn't going to do itself! Somebody has to get the food out of the ground, package it, keep the supply chains running smoothly, etc...
Millennials are without a doubt, the laziest and most incompetent generation we've had in a long time.
They spend all their energy chasing experiences instead of saving for the future. Also they tend to choose to work for corporations, choosing easy, cushy jobs instead of taking a small risk and starting their own businesses and later get acquired by corporations. There are so many opportunities out there with startups constantly raising millions of dollars and so many unicorns. How lazy can you get? The opportunities are everywhere! They're being served on a golden platter. Back in my days, I could only dream of the kinds of opportunities which young people have today in terms of education and ability to raise funding. Money is pouring down, they just have to bend down to pick it up! Next thing, investors will be reaching out to them, with 0 track record and shoving free money in their pockets! It's just ridiculous!
This stance against remote working is just one more example of millennial's laziness and spoiled attitude. They want to stay home and watch cat videos on YouTube and hang out in cafes sipping lattes all day - That's not how you get work done!
Now some of them want socialism? Give me a break! It has never been easier to earn money. Just look at house prices and stock prices shooting up, rich people are everywhere... Even idiots who invest in Dogecoin are getting rich! It's infuriating how lazy, incompetent, entitled and whining most of they are. If they spent less time complaining about everything and more time working, they would all be millionaires already!
The best way to stop global warning is through intervention by Central Banks. We need to create monetary policy which promotes incentives such as green energy and carbon capture technology. We also need to focus on improving battery technology to store excess energy for later use.
We need to introduce innovation permits to restrict who is allowed to work on green tech so that we don't waste effort reinventing the wheel. We need to bring all the top green energy minds under one roof with one director at the top who has a PhD and a proven track record of success at raising capital.
The key to innovation is to reduce competition and increase collaboration. With such focus, it's critical that we don't put the wrong people in a position of power. We need a solid proven track record in academia, politics and/or business - The only way to do this is by looking at the financial track record. The stock market is the only mechanism which we can trust for ranking top people. Mediocre people who can't achieve success in such easy economic times should not occupy positions of power. If they can't make it during such easy fiscally expansionary times, how will they perform during hard times?
We need better leaders with a proven track record and top credentials from top universities.
Innovation can harm efficiency by creating needless competition which is wasteful.
That's why innovation should be in the hands of corporations. The government should introduce laws to require innovation permits to prevent wateful competition.
These permits should be expensive, that way only big corporations could afford them so that will ensure maximum efficiency.
Maybe not completely, but they all profit from having an element of deception. They are drawing attention away from better projects by hoarding all the top spots on all the exchanges and ranking websites. They are destroying the industry and hurting people IMO.
When Stellar started, they were all about 'Quorums'; trying to imply that this was the secret sauce which would allow it to scale unlike any other blockchain. I initially thought that quorums were like separate shards but after asking around years ago, I found out that it was not the case; all transactions pass through all nodes; exactly the same as a plain old blockchain. These days they barely even mention the concept of a 'quorum' because it was never anything more than a scammy marketing tool.
I don't know too much about Cardano so I won't criticize too much but when I skim-read their whitepaper about 1 year ago, it sounded over-complicated. This is a red flag for me. Also, they are yet to implement smart contracts; so there is a long way ahead. I don't like that they keep bragging about their all-PhD team. In my experience, PhDs aren't good at delivering good developer experiences or limiting the amount of complexity.
I wouldn't say that XRP/Ripple is a scam; but only because they don't make it a secret that they are essentially a centralized crytocurrency with multiple nodes for redundancy. But some could argue that they are a scam based on the fact that they don't solve any of the problems that a cryptocurrency is meant to solve (this critique pretty much applies to all top cryptocurrencies BTW; they don't solve any significant economic problem aside from upholding the status quo; the opposite of what they claim to do).
>> So it's a scam because it doesn't exist yet and it's planned on the roadmap?
It's scammy because they sell it as if it already exists, but it doesn't.
Name any major project and I can tell you why it's a scam.
Bitcoin: Uses the electricity of a country to process 2 transactions per second. Layer 2 solutions such as Lightning Network have some significant drawbacks which make them unpractical and vulnerable to multiple attacks. They've been trying and talking it up for years - No results.
Ethereum: Doesn't scale. The entire ecosystem (including all ERC20 tokens) together cannot process more than 30 transactions per second. New ERC20 tokens have to pay the same HUGE (e.g. $20 per transaction) fees as the mainchain; all tokens slow each other down (compete for resources from each other and drive up each other's transaction fees). They said that sharding was essentially ready years ago but now they've basically canceled it (or 'put it on the backburner' as they like to call it) in favor of extremely complex and vulnerable layer-2 ZK-Rollups solutions which are completely unproven (we don't know what will happen when many projects start adopting rollups; expensive on-chain interactions still need to happen).
Polkadot: They claim everywhere to have 'Parachains'. The reality is that this feature doesn't exist yet. The way it's designed is extremely complex and the scalability benefits are limited because there can only be a limited number of parachains.
Also, one thing which almost all the projects have in common is that they're mostly targeted at developers... Yet as a developer, there is almost always a MASSIVE amount of friction involved in setting up and integrating the blockchains with other systems. For example, Ethereum requires minimum 300GB of disk space to run a node (you need to run a node to do any serious integration testing). Also, the Ethereum node doesn't even provide a basic search feature; you need to use CENTRALIZED third-party services in order to search the blockchain data (that's because the node writes to a file instead of a proper database)... OMG. I could go on and on and on. There is just so much money behind these projects that the entire community will constantly twist the facts and present a severely distorted view of reality.
There is no limit to the amount of deception and self-deception when there is money involved.
There is a massive difference. In monopoly, everyone gets the same amount when they cross 'Go'. If we had taken the rule from the real world, people would be paid proportionally to their net worth (value of all assets). Real life is even less fair than monopoly in that aspect.
If two people own shares of a company which grows at 10% per year; one person owns $1 million worth of shares and another owns $1000 worth of shares. The first person gets $100K worth of additional wealth in the first year, the other person gets only $100... Then the following year, the compounding effect increases the gap between them even more.
Even if that growth was completely natural (no central bank intervention), it would still be unfair... But what makes the system so incredibly unjust is that all this growth is ARTIFICIAL. The central banks print money and push it into the economy; the institutions on the front line then basically use that new money to pay one another for services; thus wiping out each other's debts using the freshly printed money. It's a giant, multi-layer pyramid scheme.
The vast majority of top projects are essentially scams and the real projects are not in the rankings. Even promising projects seem to turn into scams once they get into the top 200 or so. It's as if some wealthy investors buy up a lot tokens from top projects and then threaten the founders to crash the price unless they stop development and start wasting time. I've worked in the blockchain industry for several years and I've seen founders who used to constantly make great decisions start making one terrible decisions after another - It feels like they switched from being productive to being counter-productive from one day to the next. It's as if they're getting paid to NOT innovate.
I'm 100% sure that there is some manipulation going on but I can't figure out why (though I have some wild theories).
Our society is not capitalist. New currency is constantly being printed out of nothing and pumped into the system. That's not a free market. Businesses just follow the money. It can be as inefficient as society allows it to become. As long as most people can ignore the reality.
If the banks were only loaning people money to collect sea shells, then the entire global economy would end up revolving around sea shell collection.
Then some rational people would eventually write books claiming that seashell collection is a bullshit job, we don't need so many seashells... Then people like you would post comments saying "That's not true, obviously we need seashells because capitalism would never allow for such inefficiency."
It would be an interesting experiment if you could show me the GitHub repo of the best written open source FP project you've ever encountered and I could point out its flaws and rank them on a scale based on how critical they are in terms of maintenance and performance.
It's always the case that when I present these arguments above to FP devs, they respond with personal insults instead of counter-arguments. This suggests that they know my arguments are accurate but they are too invested in FP and are in denial - It's emotional, so they respond emotionally.
You shouldn't think of it like "I've been fooled and wasted all this time on FP". You should think about it like "I gave FP a thorough analysis over several years and it was a worthwhile experiment which didn't work out but I learned a lot from it".
I also spent quite a lot of time working with and reading FP code over the last 15 years. That's why I can criticize it with confidence today. It was not a waste.
I never said that this is what I believe. I said it's what a lot of people in the corporate sphere believe. It's the opposite of what I believe.
OOP solves complex problems in a simple way.
Functional Programming solves simple problems in a complex way.
Some concepts from FP are useful when applied within OOP, but pure FP is simply not practical. It doesn't scale in terms of code size, it's inefficient, it's inflexible, it takes longer to develop and maintain, it's less readable because it encourages devs to write long chains of logic spread out across many files. FP's lack of emphasis on important concepts such as blackboxing, high cohesion and loose coupling encourages developers to produce poor abstractions whose names sound highly technical but whose responsibilities are vague and impossible to explain without a long list of contrived statements which have little in common with one another.
Abstractions in FP tend to be all over the place. It seems to encourage vague, unstructured thinking. Decoupling state from logic makes it impossible to produce abstractions which are high cohesion and loosely coupled. It forces every component to mind every other component's business.
This is madness. If you don't care about structure, why not just write the entire system as a single file and define thousands of functions which call each other all over the place? You would get the same spaghetti, but you would save yourself the effort of having to jump around all these files which don't add any meaningful structure anyway.
If the article only attacked that specific book "Clean Code", then I would not be as critical. But the first line in the article suggests that it is an attack against the entire idea of writing good quality code:
'It may not be possible for us to ever reach empirical definitions of "good code" or "clean code"'
It might seem far fetched that someone might question the benefits of writing high quality code (readable, composable, maintainable, succinct, efficient...) but I've been in this industry long enough (and worked for enough different kinds of companies) to realize that there is an actual agenda to push the industry in that direction.
Some people in the corporate sphere really believe that the best way to implement software is to brute force it by throwing thousands of engineers at a giant ball of spaghetti code then writing an even more gargantuan spaghetti ball of tests to ensure that the monstrosity actually works.
This article is garbage. The argument is basically like saying "famous scientist X was wrong about Y, let's stop doing science. Clearly there is no point to it."
I cannot believe what I am reading here.
My open source community knows exactly what good code looks like and we've delivered great products in very short timeframes repeatedly and often beating our own expectations.
These kinds of articles make me feel like I must have discovered something revolutionary... But in reality I'm just following some very simple principles which were invented by other people several decades ago.
Too many coders these days have been misled into all sorts of goofy trends. Most coders don't know how to code. The vast majority of the people who claim to be experts and who write books about it don't know what they're talking about. That's the real problem. The industry has been hijacked by people who simply aren't wise or clever enough to be sharing any kind of complex knowledge. There absolutely is such a thing as good code.
I'm tired of hearing developers who have never read a single word of Alan Kay (the father of OOP) tell everyone else how bad OOP is and why FP is the answer. It's like watching someone drive a nail straight into their own hand and then complain to everyone that hammer and nails are not the right tool for attaching two pieces of wood together... That instead, the answer is clearly to tie them together with a small piece of string because nobody can get hurt that way.
Just read the manual written by the inventor of the tool.
Alan Kay said "The Big Idea is Messaging"... Yet almost none of the OOP code I read designs their components in such a way that they're "communicating" together... Instead, all the components try to use methods to micromanage each other's internal state... Passing around ridiculously complex instances to each other (clearly a whole object instance is not a message).
State mutations are safe and easy to handle if the state is fully contained inside a blackbox (a class) and you only return copies of the state but never the actual references.
A blackbox should never expose object references (its internal state) to its parent components. It should also avoid passing object references to child components unless it's sure that the child component will never mutate this state in an unexpected way.
Yes, but the difference is that OOP can scale indefinitely but FP cannot.
If you don't co-locate related state and logic, ensuring that each piece of state reaches the correct components becomes a logistical nightmare at scale (either needs to traverse many intermediate components or needs to be exposed globally to all components).
If you don't allow components to mutate state locally, you need a strategy to distribute all your data directly from external stores to the correct components and also a strategy to send state updates back to the relevant stores. When you have multiple components which share some of the same data, this is impossible to do in an efficient and reliable way because of the latency between the external store and the components (components risk overwriting each other's data by sending conflicting updates, for example).
It's a logistical nightmare, because, without co-locating state with logic in some components, you cannot control how state updates are combined and then applied onto the external store. Components have no awareness of each other so they cannot coordinate. Every read and write has to go through the external store which is both inefficient and unreliable when you factor in latency. (The idea of caching violates FP principles).
The advantage of co-located state is that it can be updated synchronously without any latency so there is no possibility of conflicts.